Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took the comment about "horrible dangers" of the street to be sarcastic. Perhaps it was not. As a parent, I DO think that allowing my kid to play in the street IS dangerous. That's why there sidewalks, and in some places, front yards! I don't think people belong in the streets unless they are on wheels. That's just me, though. I just don't trust drivers, especially these days when they drive such big cars and are so frequently distracted by cell phones.
In any case, I still think that stoops, porches, and front yards all fulfill the same function: transitional space from the purely public realm of the sidewalk or street and the purely private realm of inside the house. Each is slightly different, but their function, to me, seems nearly identical. I don't think front yards are necessary for good design, but if you have them they're nice, and they do provide a pleasant way to get outside and interact with the neighbors.
I don't, FWIW, have a problem with kids playing in alleys; unlike streets (meaning the road portion of streets) alleys seem to be designed for a wider range of uses, and the cars are driving slowly and are on the lookout for people, cars, or other obstacles. And perhaps things are also different on quiet residential streets in neighborhoods without sidewalks, although I'd still prefer kids to play somewhere else other than right in the designated driving path designed primarily for cars.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 05-06-2012 at 12:42 PM..
The "afraid of socialism" posts were at least over half a year ago and in a totally different context; it seemed like a rather large logical leap to be able to ascribe extra motives above what was literally written. And in any case, you missed that the same poster said he did not think children should not be playing in the street:
It was definitely not obvious to me that anywhere more was meant that what was clearly written nor that the street was meant in a "metaphorical". Possibly, but unless the poster says so we can't know for sure, and we are making assumptions without basis. I thought you were arguing out of nowhere for no apparent reason. I strongly dislike it when people read into my (or other people's) statements more than actually was said. It becomes a messy very confusing conversation dealing with somewhat imagined ideas and becomes a guessing game with people jumping to conclusions. People have totally misinterpreted what I've said in real life and on the forum from reading the wrong things into it.
I think it's a good policy not to read things into posts that aren't clearly stated.
This is true and I don't see anything wrong with his preferences. But not really relevant to what his post meant.
And yes, I actually disagree that parents want their homes and kids as far away as possible from the street, for the reasons you just gave.
Though, in some places children playing in the street can be safe. I remember people playing "street hockey" as a kid. And I saw a streetview of a kid playing basketball in a rather dense area but the residential streets were low traffic.
If you look at old city photos, children playing in the street was much more common, partly because car traffic was much less common.
Well, as you can see, someone else took that comment about the dangers of the street to be sarcasm. I would agree. It's like parents aren't supposed to be concerned about their kids' safety.
Everyone who has been posting here a while has a "history"; it's impossible to just read the words w/o attaching some meaning to them.
In re: the socialism comments of the poster I was quoting, here is one from yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The "private" automobile is utterly dependent on public roads. But the advocates of the "free market" will deny this all day long, while decrying public transit expenditures a fraction as large as "creeping socialism," and denying that public transit was ever a private industry, before the government began subsidizing the automobile with socialized roads.
It seems like whenever this poster posts, he brings up socialism and likes to accuse anyone who disagrees with his ideas of being afraid of socialism, with the "s" word being used sarcastically. There are no regular posters on this forum other than this poster, ironically, who have expressed any wish to privatize transit, to give a response to the above post.
You're right that some comments about socialism were from some time ago, but a) he hasn't posted here much lately, and b) you are responsible for anything you post here on CD. Certainly, here in the Urban Planning forum, things I have said have been brought up months later, by the moderator.
Here is a real gem from about 6 months ago, not about socailism but communism:
Quote:
Small business owners, department store managers, bank clerks, accountants, and other white-collar folks could afford to live there--and, by the early 20th century, the idea of suburbs affordable for professional working-men (like blacksmiths, railroad conductors, and other skilled tradesmen) became a popular cause for progressive social reformers, who hoped to allow working people housing options that were both safer and more hygienic than 19th century cities, and also more physically separate from foreign immigrants, political radicals and other un-American influences, such as Communist agitators ranting in the town square.
I also agree with uu that being in the front yard, as opposed to the back, gives one an opportunity to interact with the neighbors. Many a "great decision" has been made in my neighborhood b/c someone talked to someone else who they saw outside. For example, one neighbor had a chance encounter with me and asked me about her kid's symptoms that he had had for several weeks. I said he should probably be seen and lo and behold, he had giardia. That was the result of a chance meeting. We have planned a few neighborhood picnics that way, too.
Why can't people without kids can't have an opinion about neighborhood design?
Neighborhood design should work for all the residents, from youngest to oldest. People can fix up their individual houses to work for them. People with limited mobility might like a one-story house to avoid stair-climbing. People with kids want safe places for their kids to play outdoors. Childless people may have some other preferences. I don't know, I was once childless, and I didn't object to having a yard then, either.
I do not understand why you are constantly ascribing negative motives to people who think differently than you. You are NOT a parent. Even if you work with parents, you don't really know how parents think unless/until you become one. I learned this by becoming a parent.
Malloric seems to have lived in a very quiet neighborhood.
What is so positive about kids being "in the street" anyway? What is to be gained by that?
Gives them someplace to be physically active. Obviously, a larger lot is preferable as a place for the kids to play, but that's becoming increasingly rare. Our lots were 5-6k square feet. Two houses had a connected lawn that we used to play tag and football in, but that was only good for so long. The park was very close, but a lot of the time parents didn't want us going because then somebody had to go over and fetch the kids rather than just poke a head out the front door and holler. Parks are also rarer in lower-income neighborhoods.
My neighborhood wasn't so quite as it was well laid out. At the end of the street and blocked off by a row of houses was a thoroughfare with pretty heavy traffic going 50-60 mph. Faster to navigate than a grid, plus very little traffic on the residential streets. Win, win. Lose for pedestrians since it was build without pedestrian/bicycle cutouts. But there's no reason you can't build those into the design and many newer neighborhoods do.
Maybe because your opinion on neighborhood design wouldn't benefit somebody who has kids. Its easy for you to say that kids should play in the street because you don't have any.
I did not say that kids should play in the street.
I did not say that kids should play in the street.
But you mocked parents for wanting to keep their kids out of the street.
Quote:
A yard is a barrier between your private space and the street--it keeps the street at bay. Parents want their kids playing in the yard because of the horrible dangers that come from playing in the street.
Quote:
they want their homes and their kids as far as possible from the street.
I did not say that kids should play in the street.
Be careful---those streets are full of Communist agitators. It would be the Haymarket riots all over again!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
